death, then he returned and at the time of death he met the conditions of the bequest, the bequest to him is valid; because the conditions are present at the time of the contract and death, so the bequest is valid, just as if his condition had not changed. It is also possible that it is void, because each state of his is a state of acceptance or rejection, so the conditions are considered within them. As for if they ceased after death, so he was dismissed, then he returned and fulfilled the conditions, his executorship does not return; because it has ceased, and it does not return except through a new contract.

Section: The acceptance and rejection of a bequest are valid during the lifetime of the testator, because it is permission for disposition, so its acceptance after the contract is valid, [like agency]. This is contrary to a bequest made to him, for that is a transfer of ownership at a [specific] time, so acceptance before that time is not valid. It is permissible to delay acceptance until after death, because it is a type of bequest, so its acceptance after death is valid, like a bequest made to him. Once he accepts, he becomes an executor, and he has the right to resign whenever he wishes, regardless of his capacity or incapacity, during the testator's lifetime or after his death, whether in his presence or absence. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: It is not permissible for him to do so after death in any case, and it is not permissible during his lifetime except in his presence, because he deceived him by undertaking his executorship, and thereby prevented him from bequeathing to someone else. Ibn Abi Musa mentioned in "al-Irshad" a narration from Ahmad that he may not resign after death for that reason. Our argument is that he is a person who disposes [of property] by way of permission, so he has the right to resign, like an agent.

Section: It is permissible to set a fee for the executor, because it is in the position of agency, and agency is permissible with a fee, so the same applies to the bequest. Ishaq ibn Ibrahim reported regarding a man who bequeaths to a man and grants him a named sum of money that there is no harm in it. The executor's partition with the legatee is permissible for the heirs, because he is a deputy on their behalf. His partition for the heirs against the legatee is not permissible, because he is not a deputy on his behalf.